Yeshiva University v. Yu Pride Alliance
The Supreme Court declined to pause a New York order requiring Yeshiva University to recognize an LGBTQ student group, ruling that the university had not yet exhausted its options in the state courts.
The decision is temporary and procedural — the Court left the door open for Yeshiva to return if New York courts fail to provide timely relief, leaving the underlying religious-freedom question unresolved.
“The application is denied because it appears that applicants have at least two further avenues for expedited or interim state court relief.”
The Court's core reason for turning away Yeshiva's emergency request without reaching the merits.
How it got here: A New York trial court ordered Yeshiva to recognize the student group; state appellate courts denied interim relief without explanation; Yeshiva applied to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Yeshiva University, a Jewish institution that structures its undergraduate program around Torah values, refused to officially recognize a student LGBTQ group called YU Pride Alliance. The university said recognizing the group would conflict with its interpretation of Jewish law. The Alliance sued under New York City's human rights law, which bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. A New York trial court ordered Yeshiva to recognize the group immediately and grant it full privileges equal to other student clubs.
The question before the Court
Can the Supreme Court pause a New York court order requiring a Jewish university to officially recognize an LGBTQ student group while the university's religious-freedom appeal plays out in state courts?
The Court's answer
No — but only for now, and only on procedural grounds. The Court declined to pause the New York order because Yeshiva had not yet used all available options in the state courts. Specifically, the university had never asked the New York courts to speed up its appeal, and had not filed a corrected motion that the Appellate Division's own clerk had directed Yeshiva to file weeks earlier.
Because those avenues remained open, the Court sent Yeshiva back to pursue them first. If the New York courts deny both expedited review and any interim relief, Yeshiva may return to the Supreme Court with a fresh application. The Court did not address whether the First Amendment actually shields Yeshiva from New York City's anti-discrimination law.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
For now, Yeshiva University must treat the LGBTQ student group the same as other recognized student clubs. The larger question — whether the First Amendment shields religious universities from New York City's anti-discrimination law — remains unanswered and will continue to be fought in the New York courts, with a potential return to the Supreme Court.
What changes now
Yeshiva University must return to the New York state courts to seek expedited review of its appeal and interim relief. If those courts act and deny relief — or fail to act at all — Yeshiva may file a new emergency application with the Supreme Court. The underlying constitutional question of whether the First Amendment protects religious universities from New York City's anti-discrimination law has not been decided and will continue through the state court system.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the First Amendment protects Yeshiva University from being required to recognize the LGBTQ student group. It also did not rule on whether New York City's human rights law can constitutionally be applied to religious schools. Those questions remain fully open.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Alito
Justice Alito argued that the majority should have granted the stay immediately. In his view, Yeshiva easily satisfied all three requirements for a stay: it would likely win on the merits because forcing a religious school to adopt the government's preferred interpretation of scripture violates the Free Exercise Clause; it faces irreparable harm because losing First Amendment rights even briefly is serious and the appeal could drag on for months; and the student group's interests would not be significantly harmed since members could still socialize without official university recognition. He criticized the majority's procedural rationale as unconvincing.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Before the Supreme Court will pause a lower court's order, it generally expects the party seeking relief to have first used available remedies in the courts below — otherwise the Court would be stepping into disputes the state courts have not yet had a fair chance to resolve.
- The Court identified two specific options Yeshiva had not tried: (1) asking the New York appellate courts to expedite consideration of the merits of its appeal, and (2) filing a corrected motion with the Appellate Division to seek permission for the New York Court of Appeals to reconsider its denial of a stay — a step the Appellate Division's own clerk had instructed Yeshiva to take on August 25.
- Because both avenues remained open and unused, the Court concluded it was premature to grant emergency relief from the federal level. The stay application was denied 'without prejudice,' meaning Yeshiva can reapply to the Supreme Court if the state courts fail to provide either expedited review or interim relief.